Large Format Aesthetics

[Larry Bullis]

one,
...Do the damned work the prof requires, and don't give a crap about whether the prof would like it or not. It's your work. Make it technically perfect and artistically yours.
tim in san jose

So, I guess I'm the "prof". Here's a quote from my syllabus:

"Students sometimes try to figure out what I like on the theory that if they give me what I like, I will give them their "A". This is severely misguided; if you approach this course from that point of view (and many people do), I can guarantee that you will do poorly. I don't give good grades for what I like. I sometimes give good grades for what I don't like at all, or even hate. I give good grades for what makes me think, learn something, or experience something new. Work that challenges my level of being, work that shows insight from which I can learn or which disturbs my complacency; these earn my respect. Show me That! Your puppy will give you an "A" if you give him a dog biscuit. I am not your puppy. If you grill me to find out what I like, you will show me that you think I am your puppy. I do not like that, and you may not like the way I respond. This drives a few students nuts. If this is true for you, it will be your particular personal task this quarter to understand it. Have fun. It may very well set you free. "

 

[phfitz]

aatonpanavision,

"however this semester at my college I have to take an LF class and use an 8x10 camera."

You will not get any sharper than modern medium format, optics and film flatness win out.
4x5 will add tonality from the larger negs.
8x10 has the sharpness, tonality and adds spacial 3 dimensionality to the shot.
8x10 has noticeably less DOF and will go from wide angle distortion to telephoto compression faster than one would think.
I hope you have a selection of lenses to play with from 240 - 600mm. Try a full length and head shot with each lens matching them on the GG moving the camera and compare the prints to see the difference.

Have fun playing with it.

 

[Ian Grant]

aatonpanavision,

"however this semester at my college I have to take an LF class and use an 8x10 camera."

You will not get any sharper than modern medium format, optics and film flatness win out.

That's rather an inaccurate statement based on myth not facts.

4x5 will add tonality from the larger negs.
8x10 has the sharpness, tonality and adds spacial 3 dimensionality to the shot.
8x10 has noticeably less DOF and will go from wide angle distortion to telephoto compression faster than one would think.
I hope you have a selection of lenses to play with from 240 - 600mm. Try a full length and head shot with each lens matching them on the GG moving the camera and compare the prints to see the difference.

Have fun playing with it.

Wide angle lenses on LF cameras have far less distortion than comparable MF lenses with the possible exception of the Hasslelblad SWA.

Ian

 

[MikeSeb]

You may have look at the recent book of Jim Rakete, "1/8 sec". He's a German photographer, which made the portraits for this book with an 8x10 camera.
http://www.art-magazin.de/kunst/3393.html

Ulrich, thanks for the link. He's got a great studio space, as pictured in the link to follow.

Can anyone tell me what camera he is using in this image?

I don't know my LF gear by sight too well--it looks like it has a rangefinder of some sort (like on a Crown Graphic) on the side of the camera to the photographer's right.

Notice the strip lights to his right, in the background. Or are those reflectors? Kino-flo's?

Somebody school me please!

 

[keithwms]

Again I tell you: the reasons why people used 8x10 for early fashion photography are not necessarily the same reaosns why one would do it today.

I do not think that one resorts to 8x10 today because one needs more sharpness or detail. Better tonality and focus transitions, yes, but the high frequency information isn't that much better than you can get with slightly smaller formats or even med format. Yes, there is more detail in 8x10 relative to med format, but the gain is pretty minor if you are merely printing to magazine sizes.

In the time of Mortensen et al., you [probably] wanted a big neg simply because you could work very easily with it. Also the quality of film and lenses and overall stability of the camera were such that there probably was a much bigger gain in going to 8x10 then than there is now. Nowadays that big neg costs you a lot of money and time, relative to what you can do with smaller formats, so you'd better meditate on why you're doing it in the first place. IMHO the cost per photograph can be a good thing if you're thinking about it the right way. But you need to find your own way to think about it. Personally, the idea of recreating some historical look is of zero interest- what's done is done and if I want that photograph then I will buy the print. Life is too short to shoot the same shit over and over. There are many much better reasons to use 8x10.

Mike, offhand that looks like a technika with a coupled RF.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't know my LF gear by sight too well--it looks like it has a rangefinder of some sort (like on a Crown Graphic) on the side of the camera to the photographer's right.

Notice the strip lights to his right, in the background. Or are those reflectors? Kino-flo's?

Somebody school me please!

Looks like a 5x7 Linhof Technika. It's definitely not a 5x4.

Ian

 

[Michael W]

anyways does anybody have experience or suggestions about fashion shooting on 8x10 - notable photographers?

Paolo Roversi did some great fashion shots using 8x10 Polaroid. There was an article about him in pdn a few years ago.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know if you can find any back-issues of the Sinar magazine (they used to publish a really nifty glossy mag that of course featured their gear, but had good articles on photographers using large format gear). At one point, I bought a new Sinar A1 (aka Sinar Alpina), and so got their magazine for a year or so. One issue I had which stuck out in my mind showed a fashion photographer who used both 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. I can't remember her name for the life of me, but she was doing trick stuff with long exposures, multiple flash pops, and camera movements during the exposures. You might try giving the folks at SinarBron a call in New Jersey and see if they still have back issues of the magazine.

 

[dpurdy]

I used to love to look at Francesco Skavullo's cover shots for Cosmo mag when they were all 8x10.

When I worked in Commercial photography the most common reason to shoot 8x10 was size. To keep a cover shot at the same percentage as the rest of the job.

What often happens working that large and cumbersome is that the image gets severely affected by problem solving. So that you solve this problem then that problem then that problem then yet another problem until when all the problems in lighting and focus and composition and clothing are solved you have a very stiff image and stiff model. You need to create a shooting situation that is not too problematic so you can loosen up and shoot a little more freely. A big set, a lot of light, a simple camera configuration with out any crazy swing and tilt that has to be refocused every third second.

 

[df cardwell]

When I worked in Commercial photography the most common reason to shoot 8x10 was size

Before scanners, we had to retouch the film. After scanners, 120 ruled the cover shot for obvious reasons.

OR, for the simple directness of seeing the image on the groundglass the way you would see the contact print.
There is, at best, only a theoretical advantage of detail and 'tone' of 8x10 over 4x5. Quoting numbers like scripture is
misleading: look at the full system, and it is all a wash: 120, 4x5, 8x10. NOTHING is better than one or the other unless you are making a very peculiar and specific kind of image.

Any other LF PEOPLE shooters here, raise your hand. Yeah, thought so.

Fashion ??? Unless you are in a studio, and working with assistants and designers and the whole schmear,
8x10 fashion is more like shooting seat-of-the-pants Holga or Leica.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I have learned from a photog, that in former times 13x18cm² (5"x7") were so common as it was the least size the pre-press guys needed make colour-separation from. As they made pictures for magazines or catalogs mostly, the negatives were rarely enlarged at all.

Ulrich

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

When I worked in Commercial photography the most common reason to shoot 8x10 was size

Before scanners, we had to retouch the film. After scanners, 120 ruled the cover shot for obvious reasons.

OR, for the simple directness of seeing the image on the groundglass the way you would see the contact print.
There is, at best, only a theoretical advantage of detail and 'tone' of 8x10 over 4x5. Quoting numbers like scripture is
misleading: look at the full system, and it is all a wash: 120, 4x5, 8x10. NOTHING is better than one or the other unless you are making a very peculiar and specific kind of image.

Any other LF PEOPLE shooters here, raise your hand. Yeah, thought so.

Fashion ??? Unless you are in a studio, and working with assistants and designers and the whole schmear,
8x10 fashion is more like shooting seat-of-the-pants Holga or Leica.

While I don't shoot fashion commercially, I certainly do shoot people with large format all the time - from 4x5 to 11x14, with 5x7 and 6.5 x 8.5 being the most dominant formats. If there were not time pressures to deliver images and budget constraints (LF color is SPENDY), I'd also shoot fashion in large format too.

 

[mjs]

What Ian said. While the West Coast school of large format emphacized sharpness and clarity, that's a style which large format was capable of facilitating. That's not what large format forces you to do. In fact, using large format equipment is arguably the most versatile means of producing a photograph. You can literally do things with LF that you can't do with other types of equipment, or can only do with great difficulty.

If you want selective focus, imagine how much easier it will be defining what's in focus and what isn't with a 4x5 inch or 8x10 inch viewing screen, instead of a small reflex viewfinder, or a 2" LCD screen. You have access to the widest variety of lenses -- even ancient lenses from the earliest days of photography, with all their weird and wonderful optical "defects" can still be used. You can make your own lenses from simple optical elements, cardboard tubing, and duct tape. You can do, almost literally, anything you want. Check out Jim Galli's website, for example, for examples of large format photographs which use the optical abberations of old lenses for definitely non-sharp pictures.

What large format doesn't do well is fast photography -- if you can't imagine a portrait session without a motor drive, you're in for a shock. If you need to make 256 pictures in order to later select the six you really wanted, large format is going to frustrate you. Large format is deliberate, structured (in the operation of the camera, anyway,) and organization pays big dividends. You really ought to try it, if for no other reason than to know from personal experience what it's like. I'm betting that if you can get past the mechanics of using the camera, you're going to really like the tonality a large negative provides, even more than whatever degree of sharpness you're looking for. Just remember that large format is a very deep well -- because it's so versatile, there's always more you can do with it.

Mike

 

[df cardwell]

I certainly do shoot people with large format all the time

Good, gosh, I didn't mean to sound so petulant,
but the whole "8x10 is the God of All Photo Goodness for thing" really bugs me,
especially because I love shooting 8x10 so much !

It all changes when we're shooting people, instead of a d•mned rock.
Especially, when the people are supposed to vibrant, or at least, alive.

it's a nice overcast day today, we could should EI 400 @ 1/125 & f/8.
Say we wanted a square image, we could shoot a Rollei w/75 at f/8,
or we could get the same field of view with my Deardorff and a 300 @ f/8,
and boy howdy, would the image, and the business of making the image, be different.

That 37.5 mm shooting aperture with the 300 gives the same depth of field
as a 75mm @ f/2... or a 35mm on a Nikon @ f/1.0 ! Not fricking much. To get the same depth of field as the Rollei,
we shoot at f/32... and at 1/15. We want pure sharpness ? Shoot 120 for the obvious reason.

Quick and accurate focus, film flatness, shooting with no diffraction, and at a quick shutter speed.

What is gained from 8x10 ? Something that isn't pure sharpness.

 

[removed account4]

It all changes when we're shooting people, instead of a d•mned rock.
Especially, when the people are supposed to vibrant, or at least, alive.

you said it DF!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I certainly do shoot people with large format all the time

Good, gosh, I didn't mean to sound so petulant,
but the whole "8x10 is the God of All Photo Goodness for thing" really bugs me,
especially because I love shooting 8x10 so much !

It all changes when we're shooting people, instead of a d•mned rock.
Especially, when the people are supposed to vibrant, or at least, alive.

it's a nice overcast day today, we could should EI 400 @ 1/125 & f/8.
Say we wanted a square image, we could shoot a Rollei w/75 at f/8,
or we could get the same field of view with my Deardorff and a 300 @ f/8,
and boy howdy, would the image, and the business of making the image, be different.

That 37.5 mm shooting aperture with the 300 gives the same depth of field
as a 75mm @ f/2... or a 35mm on a Nikon @ f/1.0 ! Not fricking much. To get the same depth of field as the Rollei,
we shoot at f/32... and at 1/15. We want pure sharpness ? Shoot 120 for the obvious reason.

Quick and accurate focus, film flatness, shooting with no diffraction, and at a quick shutter speed.

What is gained from 8x10 ? Something that isn't pure sharpness.

I agree - I never said I shoot the big film for "sharpness". Some folks think it is the be-all, end-all of photography (especially members of the cult of St. Ansel). I shoot big film with people because of the way it makes me change my interactions with my subjects. It also produces a very different look/feel to the image with a totally different tonality than I would get shooting a small or medium format camera. I don't particularly like 8x10 as a format because it is too square for my taste - if I want to shoot square, I'll use the Rollei. If I want something less elongated than 5x7, I'll shoot whole plate. If I want BIG and challenging, I'll load a couple sheets in the 11x14.

I don't see how using big cameras to shoot people shows them as being less "vibrant and alive". It takes more work on the photographers' part, of course, but it certainly can be done. It just means getting your head out from under the darkcloth at the moment of exposure, and pre-planning the exposure.

 

[Allen Friday]

I do a lot of people photography with 5x7, 8x10 and larger, mainly shooting nudes and conceptual images. Part of the reason is that I do alt process and the easiest way to make a big neg for alt printing is to do it in camera. Nevertheless, even when my final print will be on silver, I like to work with big cameras because of the control they provide over the final image. I can get exactly what I want, there is no guess work involved. I know exactly the plane of focus, the depth of field, etc.

Several of the models I have photographed have commented how much they enjoy the process when I am using big cameras. It is a nice change for them from the rapid fire work of most photographers. The last model I worked with commented that she feels like she contributes more to crafting the final image with large format. We work on lighting and poses for several minutes between exposures, instead of just moving from shot to shot.

I have found that "artist's models", models who pose for life drawing classes, work well with large format. They are used to holding poses for long periods.

I also like the interaction with models that large format provides. I always come out from behind the dark cloth to check the set up, lighting and pose and then make the exposure. There is nothing between me and the model at the time I press the shutter. We talk more and communicate better than when I shoot smaller formats, when the camera is physically between me and the model.

To the OP, if you want to see what is possible with LF for portrait and fashion, check out the work of photographers from the 1930s and 1940s.
Horst was mentioned earlier. Just about all the fashion photos and film stills from those decades was done with LF.

LF fits my vision, but my vision has changed over time the more I shoot LF. I tend to emphasize tone in my work, the tone of the models skin or the tones present in a fine peice of clothing. If I want to emphasize movement, I shoot smaller formats. Your assignment is to use large format--try to meld your vision with the strengths of large format. You may be surprised at the results.

 

[df cardwell]

Hi Flying & Allen

Flying Camera said:
"I never said I shoot the big film for "sharpness"."

Right you are, I was just kind of appalled by what I had written before!

"It takes more work on the photographers' part"

Yep. I watched Nick Nixon at work quite a few years ago,
and he was simply more sure footed and clearer about what he was doing with his 8x10 than was I with my Leica.
He could see better than yours truly, plain and simple.

Allen said:

"I also like the interaction with models that large format provides. I always come out from behind the dark cloth to check the set up, lighting and pose and then make the exposure. There is nothing between me and the model at the time I press the shutter"

Yep. That might be the biggest difference: an 8x10 demands collaboration,
and there is often a greater intimacy from using the big camera

 

[BradS]

good discussion here guys - thanks.

To the OP's question/concern. Who's the guy who does the Calvin Klein ads? I doubt he shoots LF but, I cannot think of any reason that the same kinda stuff , couldn't be done with 8x10. I'm just offering this as an example - not saying you or I should mimic that style. I think you can do what ever style is yours if you put you're mind to it. It may take more effort with 8x10 but, perhaps, that is one of the things you're supposed to be learning there at university - yeah?

PS: I try to photograph people with LF (4x5) from time to time. I usually use a Crown Graphic hand held - which is kinda cheating - but have also done some semi-professional portrait work for starving student actors with the 4x5 on a tripod. I use 4x5 because I'm not that skilled in the darkroom and the big negs are more forgiving and easier to print than say, 35mm.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I had a revelatory experience about working with a large format camera and people in a workshop with John Dugdale, who shoots with a studio Deardorff 11x14 on a three-wheel camera stand. It's by no means fast (and certainly, for him, it's very slow as he can barely see), but you just have to get out of the way of the camera and interact with your subject. I find you end up composing a little loose, so you have room to accommodate subject movements, then once the camera is set, you see the subject, talk to them, and when everything is right, click the shutter.

 

[BradS]

hey, do any of you guys use the "String with knots in it" trick ?

I first read about it here - I think it was Charlie...ah, webb? or, maybe D.F. ?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't use that, but I know David Goldfarb is a big proponent of it, among other people.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Shoot how you like and want on 8x10. There are no rules, just your creative vision. Get out there to make images.

 

[Mark Fisher]

On the lighter side......
I heard a talk once by a former Playboy photographer talking about they approached their centerfold photography. They used Deardorffs (hey, they were in Chicago....what else would they use?) both in the field and in the studio up until about 10 (?) years ago. He said they stayed with the 8x10 much longer than most magazines simply because of the large centerfold images! It would be interesting to see whether their photographer's style changed when they switched to digital.

 

[df cardwell]

String with knots... yep... old studio trick... shhh !

But you can't use just any string !
(seriously, no bonus points for anything that stretches !)